VICTORY! The freedom haters LOSE!!!

Stu Farish

Director / Webmaster
Staff member
[GOA-Texas] Gun Owners Alliance Discussion List:
=================================================

From the national Shooting Sports Foundation

Bullet Points Special Edition
April 26, 2001

NEW YORK'S HIGH COURT RULES VICTIMS OF
CRIMINAL SHOOTINGS CANNOT SUE FIREARMS MANUFACTURERS

ALBANY, N.Y.-In a major defeat for anti-firearm
activists, the New York Court of Appeals unanimously
ruled today that victims of firearms-related violence
cannot sue firearms manufacturers for the criminal
misuse of a non-defective product, stating that
"Federal law already has implemented a statutory and
regulatory scheme to ensure seller 'responsibility'
through licensing requirements and buyer 'responsibility'
through background checks."

The Court ruled today in Hamilton v. Accu-Tek that an
entire industry cannot be held responsible for the
criminal use of a legally manufactured and non-defective
product because the connection between the manufacturer
and the criminal is so remote, typically involving a
chain of distribution consisting of a federally licensed
manufacturer, a federally licensed wholesaler, a federally
licensed retailer and numerous subsequent legal purchasers.

In a first-of-its-kind case, anti-firearm attorneys,
representing families of murder victims, had sued
numerous firearms manufacturers in 1995 claiming that
handgun manufacturers' marketing and distribution
practices were responsible for these criminal shootings
even though those practices complied with extensive
federal and state regulations governing the sale and
distribution of firearms.

In bringing their lawsuit, the plaintiffs had claimed
that firearms manufacturers should not engage in a broad
category of legitimate and lawful sales. The Court noted
the plaintiffs had not only failed to show how any of
their suggested "reforms" would reduce the risk of criminal
misuse of firearms-let alone the actual shootings at
issue-but would eliminate "a significant number of lawful
sales to 'responsible' buyers by 'responsible' Federal
firearms licensees who would be cut out of the distribution
chain. The Court said, " the sweep of plaintiffs' duty
theory is far wider than the danger it seeks to avert."

The Court found it was "neither feasible nor appropriate"
for manufacturers to investigate and identify corrupt
dealers, noting that "the plaintiffs' own law enforcement
experts agreed that the manufacturers should not make any
attempt to investigate illegal gun trafficking on their
own since such attempts could disrupt pending criminal
investigations and endanger the lives of undercover officers."

"We are extremely gratified by today's ruling because the
Court recognized that by complying with the extensive
statutory and regulatory scheme established by Congress
and administered by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms (BATF) federally licensed firearms manufacturers
distribute and sell their lawful products in a safe and
responsible manner and help to keep firearms out of the
hands of criminals," said Robert T. Delfay, president and
chief executive officer of the National Shooting Sports
Foundation, Inc., the trade association for the firearms
and recreational shooting sports industry. "We have long
supported law enforcement's efforts to combat illegal
firearms trafficking and cooperate whenever and however we
are asked to do so, but, obviously, recognize that we have
no law enforcement authority and should not do things that
jeopardize those efforts or put law enforcement officers
in danger," added Delfay.


NOTE TO EDITORS: The case was tried before a Brooklyn,
New York federal court jury in 1999. The jury awarded
damages to the sole surviving shooting victim, but otherwise
rejected the plaintiffs' claims. The plaintiffs' verdict
was the first time a jury had found that a firearms manufacturer
was responsible for a criminal shooting. The verdict was
appealed. The federal appeals court utilized a procedure
called "certification" to ask the New York high court to
decide whether the plaintiffs' claims were valid under
New York law.

The New York Court also ruled today that the plaintiffs'
could not utilize a "market share" liability theory to
apportion damages among the defendants.

To view the court decision go to www.courts.state.ny.us/ctapps/decisions/36opn.pdf

=========================================================================
E-Mail to requests@wavehost.com with the word "help" in the message body.
Go to http://www.GOA-Texas.org/Email.htm for subscriber information.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is
distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a
prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and
educational purposes only. Our Website is http://www.GOA-texas.org
The views contained herein do not necessarily reflect the views of Gun
Owners Alliance. We do not officially represent Gun Owners of America.
*************************************************************************


------------------
"When They turn the pages of history,
When these days have passed long ago.

Will they read about us in sorrow,
for the seeds that we let grow?" - RUSH, "A Farewell To Kings"
 
Glad you cleared that up Craig
wink.gif
Lets all take a moment to say "Amen". Thank God that some people use their common sense!!!!
 
Back
Top